Michael Saylor’s Strategy surpasses 500,000 Bitcoin with latest purchase  

Two Republican candidates supported by at least a combined $1.5 million in media spending from a cryptocurrency-backed political action committee (PAC) are making final pleas to voters turning out for special elections in Florida congressional districts.On April 1, voters in Florida’s 1st and 6th congressional districts will head to the polls to decide whether to keep Republican representatives or hand over control to Democrats for the first time in roughly 30 years. The Defend American Jobs PAC — an affiliate of Fairshake, which poured more than $131 million in the 2024 US election cycle — has spent a combined $1.5 million on media for Republicans Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine, running against Democrats Gay Valimont and Josh Weil, respectively.Source: Gay Valimont for CongressThough the Florida congressional districts have historically favored Republican candidates, Democrats Valimont and Weil both raised significantly more than Patronis and Fine as of March — a reported roughly $6.5 million and $10 million against the Republicans’ $1 million and $1 million, respectively. These amounts do not reflect the media buys from PACs like Defend American Jobs or Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s America PAC, which spent more than $20,000 for texting services in the two congressional elections.As of March 31, there were four vacant seats in the US House of Representatives following two Democratic lawmakers dying and two Republicans resigning in anticipation of positions with the Trump administration. If Democrats were to keep their existing two seats and flip the two in Florida, Republicans’ majority in the chamber would narrow to 217 to 218 — not changing majority control, but likely influencing how the House would consider legislation and policy.Among the crypto-related legislation being considered in Congress included a market structure bill and stablecoin regulation. Some lawmakers have suggested that they intended to get both bills passed before Congress goes on recess in August.Related: Florida bill proposes strict rules against online gamblingMichigan Representative Shri Thanedar, a Democrat who described himself as largely self-funded and may have benefitted from crypto-backed PAC money in his 2024 race, spoke to Cointelegraph on March 27 about the role the industry could have on future elections. Protect Progress — another Fairshake-affiliated PAC — spent more than $1 million on a media buy to support the Michigan representative in his August 2024 primary. He defeated Republican Martell Bivings in November with 68% of the vote.“I was surprised to see those ads,” Thanedar told Cointelegraph, referring to Protect Progress’ media outreach. “I was not aware that such an ad would be appearing in support of my campaign.”The Michigan lawmaker added:“Crypto is not unique to this. There are multiple industries […] that have PACs and Super PACs and independent expenditures. All of that money, the dark money in our politics, has to go. As long as we have the dark money in politics, that is going to impact our politicians.” Looking to the 2026 midtermsAfter many Democratic and Republican candidates espousing “pro-crypto” views won in the 2024 elections, Fairshake spokesperson Josh Vlasto said the PAC was “keeping [its] foot on the gas” in the future. Major firms like Coinbase and Ripple Labs have contributed tens of millions of dollars to the PAC.As of January, Fairshake reported holding more than $116 million to spend on candidates in 2025 and 2026. Vlasto declined to comment on the April 1 special elections but said after the January primaries, the PAC was “proud to support [Patronis and Fine] with TV ad campaigns.” Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions

The top Democrat on the US House Financial Services Committee issued a warning after reports suggested that Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s “government efficiency” team would be given access to data and systems at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).In a March 31 notice, Representative Maxine Waters reiterated a warning from a letter she sent to acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda in February in response to the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency’s reported access to sensitive SEC information. DOGE is an advisory body to US President Donald Trump rather than an official department established by Congress. According to the California lawmaker, giving Musk such access would have “dire consequences” for US investors and present conflicts of interest.“[…] as a result of this takeover, the agency is at greater risk of data breaches and market disruptions, both of which could result in investors, including retirees, losing their hard-earning savings,” said Waters, adding: “Not only that, Musk, who has been the subject of repeated SEC enforcement actions for breaking securities laws and regulations, can benefit his own businesses and harm his competitors by using his access to confidential business information and his influence over the agency’s operations.”Waters’ warning followed multiple reports suggesting that Musk’s DOGE team contacted the SEC and would be given access to the commission’s systems and data. Since joining the Trump administration as a “special government employee,” Musk has spearheaded efforts to fire staff at multiple government agencies, including the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the watchdog Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Many of DOGE’s actions face lawsuits in federal court from parties alleging the group’s actions were illegal or unconstitutional.Related: Can the law keep up with Musk and DOGE?As one of the major US financial regulators, the SEC is responsible for oversight and regulation of many aspects of the cryptocurrency industry, including whether many tokens qualify as securities. Under Uyeda and US President Donald Trump, the commission has dropped several lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws against crypto firms since January.‘Cost-cutting’ strategy at SEC?It’s unclear whether the DOGE team intends to “purge” the SEC of employees Musk considers not loyal to the Trump administration, as has been implied in some lawsuits involving firings at other government agencies. Cointelegraph contacted acting chair Uyeda and SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.DOGE’s reported infiltration of the SEC comes as the US Senate Banking Committee is expected to vote on whether to advance the nomination of Paul Atkins, Trump’s pick to chair the agency. At his March 27 confirmation hearing, Atkins said he would “definitely” be willing to work with DOGE if confirmed. Democratic lawmakers at the hearing questioned Atkins’ potential conflicts of interest with the crypto industry.Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered

Opinion by: Genny Ngai and Will Roth of Morrison Cohen LLPSince taking office, the Trump administration has designated several drug and violent cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). US President Donald Trump has also called for the “total elimination” of these cartels and the like. These executive directives are not good developments for the cryptocurrency industry. On their face, these mandates appear focused only on criminal cartels. Make no mistake: These executive actions will cause unforeseen collateral damage to the digital asset community. Crypto actors, including software developers and investors, may very well get caught in the crosshairs of aggressive anti-terrorism prosecutions and follow-on civil lawsuits.Increased threat of criminal anti-terrorism investigations The biggest threat stemming from Trump’s executive order on cartels is the Department of Justice (DOJ). Almost immediately after President Trump called for the designation of cartels as terrorists, the DOJ issued a memo directing federal prosecutors to use “the most serious and broad charges,” including anti-terrorism charges, against cartels and transnational criminal organizations.This is a new and serious development for prosecutors. Now that cartels are designated as terrorist organizations, prosecutors can go beyond the traditional drug and money-laundering statutes and rely on criminal anti-terrorism statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2339B — the material-support statute — to investigate cartels and anyone who they believe “knowingly provides material support or resources” to the designated cartels. Why should the crypto industry be concerned with these developments? Because “material support or resources” is not just limited to providing physical weapons to terrorists. “Material support or resources” is broadly defined as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” Anyone who knowingly provides anything of value to a designated cartel could now conceivably violate § 2339B. Even though cryptocurrency platforms are not financial institutions and never take custody of users’ assets, aggressive prosecutors may take the hardline view that software developers who design crypto platforms — and those who fund these protocols — are providing “material support or resources” to terrorists and launch harmful investigations against them.This is not some abstract possibility. The government has already demonstrated a willingness to take this aggressive position against the crypto industry. For example, the DOJ indicted the developers of the blockchain-based software protocol Tornado Cash on money laundering and sanction charges and accused them of operating a large-scale money laundering operation that laundered at least $1 billion in criminal proceeds for cybercriminals, including a sanctioned North Korean hacking group.Recent: Crypto crime in 2024 likely exceeded $51B, far higher than reported: ChainalysisMoreover, the government already believes that cartels use cryptocurrency to launder drug proceeds and has brought numerous cases charging individuals for laundering drug proceeds through cryptocurrency on behalf of Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. TRM Labs, a blockchain intelligence company that helps detect crypto crime, has even identified how the Sinaloa drug cartel — a recently designated FTO/SDGT — has used cryptocurrency platforms to launder drug proceeds.The digital asset community faces real risks here. Putting aside the reputational damage and costs that come from defending criminal anti-terrorism investigations, violations of § 2339B impose a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years (or life if a death occurred) and monetary penalties. Anti-terrorism statutes also have extraterritorial reach, so crypto companies outside the US are not immune to investigation or prosecution.Civil anti-terrorism lawsuits will escalate The designation of cartels as FTOs/SDGTs will also increase the rate at which crypto companies will be sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Under the ATA, private citizens, or their representatives, can sue terrorists for their injuries, and anyone “who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.” Aggressive plaintiffs’ counsel have already relied on the ATA to sue cryptocurrency companies in court. After Binance and its founder pled guilty to criminal charges in late 2023, US victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel sued Binance and its founder under the ATA, alleging that the defendants knowingly provided a “mechanism for Hamas and other terrorist groups to raise funds and transact illicit business in support of terrorist activities” and that Binance processed nearly $60 million in crypto transactions for these terrorists. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. For now, the district court permits the Ranaan plaintiffs to proceed against Binance with their aiding-and-abetting theory. Crypto companies should expect to see more ATA lawsuits now that drug cartels are on the official terrorist list. Vigilance is key Crypto companies may think that Trump’s war against cartels has nothing to do with them. The reality is, however, that the effects of this war will be widespread, and crypto companies may be unwittingly drawn into the crossfire. Now is not the time for the digital asset community to relax internal compliance measures. With anti-terrorism statutes in play, crypto companies must ensure that transactions with all FTOs/SDGTs are identified and blocked, monitor for new terrorist designations, and understand areas of new geographical risks.Opinion by: Genny Ngai and Will Roth of Morrison Cohen LLP. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.